 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / December 2008Copying Hobby VHS tapes to DVD legalities
On a Yahoo Group that I follow there was a short discussion about copying one's VHS railroad tapes onto DVDs to preserve them. One fellow said he's done this, and keeps all of the original VHS tapes to prove that he bought them and can legally copy them for his own personal use. I replied that I've done the same with the over 100 tapes that I had, and then I sold off the VHS tapes at local train shows. The copy DVDs all fit on one shelf, where the tapes were all over the place, one reason I had for replacing them was to gain some space. The moderator came back lambasting me saying that selling MY tapes in such a manner and keeping the copies was ILLEGAL. And since Yahoo did not condone illegal copyright activities, I was not to refer to this practice again! What a lot of BS! Me selling tapes that I paid for was illegal!! Talk about weak kneed wussies! Now if I was making copies of the VHS tapes and selling them, I could see that being not right, but selling MY tapes?? Comments? Bob B > On a Yahoo Group that I follow there was a short discussion about > copying one's VHS railroad tapes onto DVDs to preserve them. One [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bob B Selling the tapes was not illegal. Keeping your backup copy on DVD WAS/IS illegal When you sell the original you lost the right for a protective backup of the item. Howard G Railfan wrote: > <snip.> > Bob B Selling the tapes was not illegal. Keeping your backup copy on DVD WAS/IS illegal When you sell the original you lost the right for a protective backup of the item. Howard G Yeah, what he said. 100% agree. Val M. > Railfan wrote: >> <snip.> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yeah, what he said. 100% agree. > Val M. Also: IF the retail video tapes were manufactured with Macrovision AND they were duplicated after the effective date of the DMCA, they may not have ever been legal. DMCA clearly specifically prohibits defeating software and hardware anti-copy measures, even where "Fair Use" backup would otherwise apply. Many of the mainstream retail motion picture and TV show tapes had Macrovision to make it harder for people to duplicate the tapes. Duplication of retail taped material with Macrovision normally requires hardware to filter out the Macrovision effects (tape to tape) or special Macrovision removal recording software (tape to computer based DVR). If you were able to duplicate the tape with the software that came with a normal tape to computer recording adapter or the software that came with a computer based tuner card the tape probably didn't have Macrovision. *snip* > Duplication of retail taped material with Macrovision normally > requires hardware to filter out the Macrovision effects (tape to tape) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > software that came with a computer based tuner card the tape probably > didn't have Macrovision. There are some computer capture cards (the Hauppague PVR250 being one) that aren't affected by Macrovision. They simply work differently than Macrovision does, so it's ineffective. I've had my DVD-Recorder tell me I couldn't copy some tape or something to DVD, and played it back with the same VCR to capture to computer and it's worked just fine. Puckdropper  SignatureIf you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm > There are some computer capture cards (the Hauppague PVR250 being one) > that aren't affected by Macrovision. They simply work differently than > Macrovision does, so it's ineffective. I've had my DVD-Recorder tell me > I couldn't copy some tape or something to DVD, and played it back with > the same VCR to capture to computer and it's worked just fine. Huh, I didn't know that! Thank you! -Pete > > There are some computer capture cards (the Hauppague PVR250 being one) > > that aren't affected by Macrovision. �They simply work differently than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Pete So when those black-uniformed RIAA police kick in your door at four am with their jackbooted feet, you can't plead ignorance anymore! On Aug 31, 11:57 am, "video guy - www.locoworks.com" <videoc...@aol.com> wrote: > So when those black-uniformed RIAA police kick in your door at four am > with their jackbooted feet, you can't plead ignorance anymore! Somehow I doubt that I'm going to be staying up nights, gripping my assault weapon in fear. > On Aug 31, 11:57�am, "video guy -www.locoworks.com" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Somehow I doubt that I'm going to be staying up nights, gripping my > assault weapon in fear. You laugh now, but just wait until they clamp the electrodes on your testicles! On Aug 31, 11:19 pm, "video guy - www.locoworks.com" <videoc...@aol.com> wrote: > > > So when those black-uniformed RIAA police kick in your door at four am > > > with their jackbooted feet, you can't plead ignorance anymore! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You laugh now, but just wait until they clamp the electrodes on your > testicles! If they get over my fence and survive the rotweiller's greetings they yet have to deal with the dog's owner: an ex-Army Infantry guy who still owns and stays proficient with both long and short arms. "Gee, what a pity, officer! I would have *sworn* they were that darned coyote pack we've been having trouble with!" -Pete Whoo! Who'da thunk that me selling my 15-25 year old tapes could be illegal! Guess I'll have to worry about the copyright police dropping in to see what I've done. After reconsidering, I think I may have made a mistake, instead of selling my old tapes for $5-10 at local train shows I actually destroyed them. Shredded them into a zillion pieces and put them into a recycling bin. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Fuggemall! Bob B > Whoo! Who'da thunk that me selling my 15-25 year old tapes could be > illegal! Guess I'll have to worry about the copyright police > dropping in to see what I've done. While *technically* it is indeed a copyright violation, it is in effect relatively minor in a larger sense. You only made a single copy. The material is old -- are the companies that made the original tapes still in business? I don't think VHS tapes are still being made -- even *new* VCRs are getting hard to get -- VHS tapes are going the way of vinyl records or 8-track tapes -- showing up at tag sales, with VCRs collecting dust in antique shops, right along side victrolas, err turntables, and 8-track tape decks, and cassette players... > After reconsidering, I think I may have made a mistake, instead of > selling my old tapes for $5-10 at local train shows I actually [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Bob B > SignatureRobert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ > > Whoo! Who'da thunk that me selling my 15-25 year old tapes could be > > illegal! Guess I'll have to worry about the copyright police [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > Bob B VHS tapes are still being made. Vinyl records are making a comeback and turntables are still being made; I'm talking decent ones. SignatureJack N2MPU Proud NRA Life Member change nyob.com to verizon.net for email >making a comeback and turntables are still being made; I'm talking decent ones.< I saw an ad for one somewhere that was USB. Straight from vinyl to the computer. Advertised as save your old records! >>making a comeback and > turntables are still being made; I'm talking decent ones.< > > I saw an ad for one somewhere that was USB. Straight from vinyl to the > computer. Advertised as save your old records! Be wary - some are overpriced or junk or both. The best that I've seen from a technical and price standpoint is from Audio Tecnica; mine is an AT-LP2D USB. Also let me recommend the free and open source Audacity software over the downgraded versions of Cakewalk or Roxio's crap that others bundle with their USB turntables. The only drawback I've seen for mine is that it's not large enough to turn a Bachmann USRA 2-6-6-2. SignatureSteve Nice way to get the thread back on topic!!! Made my morning, if not the whole day. On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:26:09 -0700, Jon Miller wrote: <snip> The only drawback I've seen for mine is that it's not large enough to turn a Bachmann USRA 2-6-6-2. SignatureSteve > The only drawback I've seen for mine is that it's not large enough to turn > a Bachmann USRA 2-6-6-2. Well, that's okay. They play hell with the diamond needles anyway! -Pete On 9/7/2008 8:26 AM Jon Miller spake thus: >>making a comeback and > turntables are still being made; I'm talking decent ones.< > > I saw an ad for one somewhere that was USB. Straight from vinyl to the > computer. Advertised as save your old records! Totally unnecessary, and probably not very good, as pointed out by others. Since the "demise" of vinyl, good turntables are a dime a dozen (secondhand, not new). Get a good one with a good cartridge and stylus, run it through a decent preamp or receiver, and into your sound card's line in input. That's what I do. Then you can use any software you want to record. SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire > On 9/7/2008 8:26 AM Jon Miller spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > line in input. That's what I do. Then you can use any software you want > to record. I'm a pack rat, and get blamed all the time by my wife, but finally it came in handy as I revived that 1960's turntable and preamp I had and used it to record some LP's and 45's the other day. Took a bit to find a dealer for the needle :-) I just needed to figure out the recording software more than anything, and trimming off the lead in/out. But you're right, it works great. >On Aug 31, 11:19 pm, "video guy - www.locoworks.com" ><videoc...@aol.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >-Pete Sort of like the guy in Texas who saw two latino men trying unsuccessfully trying to break into a neighbors house. After being told no less than three times by the 911 operator to stay in his house and that police were en route he want outside and shot them dead as they were leaving, in the back of course. Was he convicted of anything, are you kidding it's Texas. -- "The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes them" - Jason Laumark "I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag" - Craig Washington, congressman "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry "Any needless concentration of power is a menace to freedom" - Dwight D. Eisenhower >Sort of like the guy in Texas who saw two latino men trying >unsuccessfully trying to break into a neighbors house. Unsuccessfully? They were confronted coming *out* of the home and had a bag of cash and jewelry with them. >After being told no less than three times by the 911 operator to stay >in his house and that police were en route he want outside and shot >them dead as they were leaving, in the back of course. > >Was he convicted of anything, are you kidding it's Texas. And the two Columbians haven't robbed any more homes... >>Sort of like the guy in Texas who saw two latino men trying >>unsuccessfully trying to break into a neighbors house. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >And the two Columbians haven't robbed any more homes... Perfect example of good "gun control": First Round Hits! >>>Sort of like the guy in Texas who saw two latino men trying >>>unsuccessfully trying to break into a neighbors house. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Perfect example of good "gun control": First Round Hits! This is *way* off-topic for the newsgroup. And if you want to argue, I'll post the news stories from the last few weeks, of the idiot gun dealer and the idiot father handing the assault weapon to the 8-yr-old, who then killed the father. Or the one about the 8-yr-old killing, mmm, I think it was his father and another man. Or the first round hits from the el here in Chicago, that killed a teenaged girl. or..... mark Signature"They're beating plowshares into swords for those tired old men we elected king." Don Henley` > I'll post the news stories from the last few weeks, of the idiot gun dealer and the idiot father handing the assault weapon to the 8-yr-old, who then killed the father.< You need to post as your paraphasing is way off. The 8 yr killed himself. Also while stupid no laws were broken. In many states assault weapons are legal including the 50cal rifle as one example. While from copying tapes to weapons I don't like people who do things against the law but I have the same feelings for persons who have no idea what the laws are. Both are stupid. And *all* of the followups are missing the main point: gun laws, use, and misuse are *way* off-topic for the group. There's plenty of newsgroups for arguing them - this ain't one of them. I'll cheerfully argue why y'all are wrong, but I don't want to do it *here*. mark Signature"There's about as much ideological diversity on talk radio today in the US as there was in Stalin's Soviet Union in 1934. I mean, it's not just right wing, it's very far to the right." --Eric Alterman >This is *way* off-topic for the newsgroup. And if you want to argue, I'll >post the news stories from the last few weeks, of the idiot gun dealer and >the idiot father handing the assault weapon to the 8-yr-old, who then >killed the father. Or the one about the 8-yr-old killing, mmm, I think it >was his father and another man. Argue about what? Accidents? Don't make me post the news stories about how many children die in cars, swimming pools, or from common household chemicals. >>This is *way* off-topic for the newsgroup. And if you want to argue, I'll >>post the news stories from the last few weeks, of the idiot gun dealer and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > many children die in cars, swimming pools, or from common household > chemicals. Hey, how about that Charles Whitman, eh? Quite a shot - but then, he WAS and Eagle Scout. SignatureSteve > Sort of like the guy in Texas who saw two latino men trying > unsuccessfully trying to break into a neighbors house. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- That's because, under the Texas Constitution and Texas Law, those actions, to protect property, are completely legal. > That's because, under the Texas Constitution and Texas Law, those > actions, to protect property, are completely legal. as they should be everywhere. >> That's because, under the Texas Constitution and Texas Law, those >> actions, to protect property, are completely legal. > > as they should be everywhere. Yay! Deadly force rules! How "American". -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >>> That's because, under the Texas Constitution and Texas Law, those >>> actions, to protect property, are completely legal. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > See the GER at: - > http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ "American" or not, it has to be that way, or just give it all up to the miscreants. Then, they'll come after you and yours... fl@liner >>>> That's because, under the Texas Constitution and Texas Law, those >>>> actions, to protect property, are completely legal. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >miscreants. >Then, they'll come after you and yours... Anti-gunners should prominently display a "This is a Gun-Free Home!" sign outside their homes. That would make things a lot safer for the criminals. >>>>> That's because, under the Texas Constitution and Texas Law, those >>>>> actions, to protect property, are completely legal. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Anti-gunners should prominently display a "This is a Gun-Free Home!" sign > outside their homes. That would make things a lot safer for the criminals. And how about the corollary: gun owners display signs saying "Lots of guns inside - wait 'til we're gone." PS - just why the f.ck do you need an AK-47 to hunt deer? Can't you shoot for sh.t? Oh - sorry: I didn't think, maybe you live on a compound in Waco - or Idaho - with a legion of crazed Christian fundamentalist neo-Nazis, and you feel threatened. SignatureSteve > And how about the corollary: gun owners display signs saying "Lots of > guns > inside - wait 'til we're gone." Anyone that leaves unsecured firearms in their home when they are gone deserves to have them stolen. And, for that matter, they should be held accountable for them being stolen. > Anti-gunners should prominently display a "This is a Gun-Free Home!" sign > outside their homes. That would make things a lot safer for the criminals. That's a great idea. Let's start by requiring all the Anti-Gun Politicians and Lobbyists to post that sign around their homes. >> Anti-gunners should prominently display a "This is a Gun-Free Home!" sign >> outside their homes. That would make things a lot safer for the >> criminals. > > That's a great idea. Let's start by requiring all the Anti-Gun Politicians > and Lobbyists to post that sign around their homes. Great. And when one of you shoots at someone, and misses, and gets someone else, maybe in your neighbor's house, then you have no trouble being up for manslaughter and serving time, right? mark SignatureFrodo: "(Gollum) deserves death!" Gandalf: "...I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." >>> Anti-gunners should prominently display a "This is a Gun-Free Home!" sign >>> outside their homes. That would make things a lot safer for the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >else, maybe in your neighbor's house, then you have no trouble being up for >manslaughter and serving time, right? As long as you have no problem being up for manslaughter after running a stop sign. Or do you want to ban cars also? >>>> Anti-gunners should prominently display a "This is a Gun-Free Home!" >>>> sign outside their homes. That would make things a lot safer for the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > As long as you have no problem being up for manslaughter after running a > stop sign. Or do you want to ban cars also? How about requiring annual training, and licensing for guns? Oh, and I'm so glad you're for supplying guns to gangs. mark Signature"Tenderness and kindness are not signs of weakness and despair, but manifestations of strength and resolution." - Khalil Gibran > Oh, and I'm so glad you're for supplying guns to gangs. They really are. The ayatollahs of the NRA keep insisting that the Tiahrt Amendment be appended to BATF funding, preventing use of the Federal database for finding which gun dealers are making hundreds (if not more) sales to straw buyers, in Virginia for instance, who then import them to New York and see that the dope dealers and pimps are free to exercize their 2nd Amendment rights. The only question is whether this is out of pigheaded ideological stupidity or if there are payoffs involved; or both. SignatureSteve >> As long as you have no problem being up for manslaughter after running a >> stop sign. Or do you want to ban cars also? > >How about requiring annual training, and licensing for guns? Annual? Do you take a driver's test every year? But for carrying in public, sure, no problem. No need for a license for home use, just as you don't need a license to drive on private property. >Oh, and I'm so glad you're for supplying guns to gangs. I see. Well I'm not at all happy that you rape children. If you're going to make things up, think big. >>> As long as you have no problem being up for manslaughter after running a >>> stop sign. Or do you want to ban cars also? >> >>How about requiring annual training, and licensing for guns? > > Annual? Do you take a driver's test every year? I'd like to see everyone retake it at *least* every 10 years, and over 65, every five, and over 70 or 75, every year. That way, we'd probably get half the a.sholes in the SUVs with cellphones permanently implanted who are under 45 off the road. > But for carrying in public, sure, no problem. No need for a license for > home use, just as you don't need a license to drive on private property. You really think you want to live in Tombstone. You're a fool. >>Oh, and I'm so glad you're for supplying guns to gangs. > > I see. Well I'm not at all happy that you rape children. > > If you're going to make things up, think big. Why? The laws you advocate means that those who want guns will get all that they want, and gangbangers will want them more than you do. But you *are* an a.shole, since you keep ignoring the original point I made: that this has utterly nothing to do with model railroading, and you insist on filling the newsgroup with this crap, rather than, say, responding to me (and my email is perfectly visible). mark SignatureTo a fanatical libertarian, our [law] code is just. If a poor man can afford a four hundred dollar an hour lawyer, he can get the same protection as a rich man. - schwepes >>>How about requiring annual training, and licensing for guns? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That way, we'd probably get half the a.sholes in the SUVs with cellphones >permanently implanted who are under 45 off the road. Yeah, right. Teenagers who've just taken their tests have the highest rates of accidents. A fat lot of good testing does. And what the hell does testing have to do with using cell phones while driving? People tend to be on their best behavior when testing. >> But for carrying in public, sure, no problem. No need for a license for >> home use, just as you don't need a license to drive on private property. > >You really think you want to live in Tombstone. You're a fool. You are an even bigger fool for believing every western you've ever seen. 1880's Tombstone (and Dodge City, KS, which is usually the town referred to by people making this lame argument) had lower murder rates that most U.S. cities today. Actually, Tombstone, and most other old west towns, had a law against the carrying of firearms within city limits. That is why the Earp's and Doc Holliday had no holsters when they walked down the street to murder Billy Clanton and the McLaurys (one of whom wasn't even armed.) >>>Oh, and I'm so glad you're for supplying guns to gangs. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Why? The laws you advocate means that those who want guns will get all that >they want, and gangbangers will want them more than you do. There are plenty of laws against felons buying or possessing firearms. Enforce the laws that exist. >But you *are* an a.shole, since you keep ignoring the original point I made: >that this has utterly nothing to do with model railroading, and you insist >on filling the newsgroup with this crap, rather than, say, responding to me >(and my email is perfectly visible). Yet you just had to respond... > There are plenty of laws against felons buying or possessing firearms. > Enforce the laws that exist. It would be a hell of a lot easier to do that effectively if the cold dead fingers crown would tell the NRA ayatollahs to stop demanding the Tiahrt Amendment limit hte use of federal firearms databases so the corrupt dealers and manufacturers could be tracked down. SignatureSteve > It would be a hell of a lot easier to do that effectively if the cold dead > fingers crown would tell the NRA ayatollahs to stop demanding the Tiahrt > Amendment limit hte use of federal firearms databases so the corrupt > dealers and manufacturers could be tracked down. And naturally we can instantly tell that you're not trying to spin anything in your direction by the way you use completely unloaded phrases such as "cold dead fingers crown" (sic), "NRA ayatollahs" (sic), and "corrupt dealers and manufacturers" (sick). It's sensible, centrist positions such as this that convince responsible gun owners that the left wing fruit-loops really *are* out to totally disarm them, and cause those gun owners to resist *any* move towards gun control as being just one more step on the road to complete confiscation. So -in a very real sense- you're shooting yourself in the foot. ~Pete > And naturally we can instantly tell that you're not trying to spin > anything in your direction by the way you use completely unloaded > phrases such as "cold dead fingers crown" (sic), "NRA > ayatollahs" (sic), and "corrupt dealers and manufacturers" (sick). Sorry for the typo - I of course meant "crowd', not "crown". They seem to really like feeling threatened and under siege. Their slogan is as stupid and demeaning to your cause as the "Kill 'Em All and Let God Sort 'Em Out" t-shirts seen on so many pimply faced skinhead wannabe's and junior Rambo w.nkers. If you can find more than one of them in a thousand who knows the origin of the phrase, I'll be very surprised. Given his dogmatic one-way mentality, La Pierre certainly acts like an ayatollah. There certainly are corrupt dealers; what percentage, and it may well be small, we cannot tell since the Tiahrt Amendment makes it legally impossible to find out. There may as well be corrupt manufacturers. Untie the hands of the cops and let them find out. What are you afraid of? SignatureSteve > What are you afraid of? People like you being put in charge of anything more complex than a tricycle. As someone once quoth: "For every difficult and convoluted question there is a simple one-size-fits-all answer. It's completely *wrong*, of course, but it *is* simple." ~Pete >> What are you afraid of? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's completely *wrong*, of course, but it *is* simple." Why so evasive? What is NRA hiding with this Tiahrt crap? SignatureSteve Notice that none of the gun nuts has had *any* model RR-related posts, nor responded to my continued suggestions that it was o-t. I can only assume from that that none of them have any interest in model railroads, and are just spammer kids with nothing else to do, no significant others, or a clue. This ends my participation in this idiocy. mark >Notice that none of the gun nuts has had *any* model RR-related posts, nor >responded to my continued suggestions that it was o-t. I can only assume So how about some model RR posts from you? >>Notice that none of the gun nuts has had *any* model RR-related posts, nor >>responded to my continued suggestions that it was o-t. I can only assume > > So how about some model RR posts from you? The one that I've seen in MR, the one that I lust over, and when I can get a set up, hope to emulate is Sellios' Franklin and Manchester. Works well, since my time period is '39-'40. I'm a bit south of there, though: as a Philly expatriate, I run Pennsy. The one change I've made was to decide that while still under bankruptcy from the Depression, 42 years before the MoPac merged into UP, it was the Pennsy that swallowed it. So, though I only have a passenger car or two relabeled, that's the Pennsy Pacific, or PPRR.... <g> And bringing in the MoPac was because my ...late... wife's late father had spent his career as an engineer on the MoPac. I have a picture of him in a MoPac Mike, and I modified a LifeLike (I think that's what it was - it's in the basement just now) Mike to look as closely as I could to the 1212. mark SignatureAs nearly as I can tell, individual health insurance *isn't* insurance; it's simply a draconian form of a buyer's club. - Bill Roper [...] >> So how about some model RR posts from you? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > mark I agree, the F&SM is one of the great model railroads. We know that what Sellios has modelled is at best "based on" real buildings and scenes. But what he actually models is his concept of the Depression era. IMO what Sellios' layout demonstrates is that a consistent visual style matters far more in creating the illusion of reality than the subject of the layout. It doesn't matter whether what's modelled is some segment of a real railroad, or whether it's a figment of the maker's imagination. C S Lewis in one his essays distinguished between "life-like" == "giving the illusion of life/reality" and "like life" == "resembling life/reality". He noted the paradox that "like life" is not always "life-like", and points to some of the great works of fantastic fiction to illustrate his point (IMO, his books are also examples, as are the Harry Potter books and movies, etc.) The reason is that the content of the story is not what creates the illusion. It's how the story is told, its style IOW. In fact, many earnestly well-intentioned works of moralising fiction are neither life-like nor like life. IMO, the FS&M is life-like, but it's not like life. Pelle Sjoberg's UP layout OTOH is both like life and life-like. In both cases, we see that model railroads are a kind of art. As in all the arts, the masters are those who have developed a style that expresses their vision of reality, their vision of what the railroad was and is. SignatureWolf Kirchmeir > IMO, the FS&M is life-like, but it's not like life. Pelle Sjoberg's UP > layout OTOH is both like life and life-like. You mean Pelle Søborg, don't you ? http://www.soeeborg.dk/gallery.html Klaus SignatureModelbane Europas hjemmeside: http://www.modelbaneeuropa.hadsten.dk Modeltog, internet, gratis spambekæmpelse, elektronik og andet: http://home6.inet.tele.dk/moppe >> IMO, the FS&M is life-like, but it's not like life. Pelle Sjoberg's UP >> layout OTOH is both like life and life-like. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Klaus Yup. (Sjoberg is the Swedish version of the name, I believe. Lots of Swedes in our corner of Alberta, when I lived in that Province.)) SignatureWolf Kirchmeir > Yup. (Sjoberg is the Swedish version of the name, I believe. Lots of > Swedes in our corner of Alberta, when I lived in that Province.)) "Berg" is "mountain" - "Borg" is "Castle" Klaus SignatureModelbane Europas hjemmeside: http://www.modelbaneeuropa.hadsten.dk Modeltog, internet, gratis spambekæmpelse, elektronik og andet: http://home6.inet.tele.dk/moppe On Dec 2, 2:40 pm, "Klaus D. Mikkelsen" <er.du.saa.k...@du.kan.finde.den> wrote: > "Borg" is "Castle" Resistance is futile. ~Pete >> Yup. (Sjoberg is the Swedish version of the name, I believe. Lots of >> Swedes in our corner of Alberta, when I lived in that Province.)) > > "Berg" is "mountain" - "Borg" is "Castle" Correction: Home Depot is The Borg. > Correction: Home Depot is The Borg. Oh, I din't know that You know danish better than Me :-) Klaus SignatureModelbane Europas hjemmeside: http://www.modelbaneeuropa.hadsten.dk Modeltog, internet, gratis spambekæmpelse, elektronik og andet: http://home6.inet.tele.dk/moppe On 12/3/2008 8:52 AM Klaus D. Mikkelsen spake thus: >> Correction: Home Depot is The Borg. > > Oh, I din't know that You know danish better than Me :-) Well, of course we do: we speak English. At the risk of taking all the steam out of a bad joke, an explanation of "The Borg" for non-North Americans: o Borg = entity from Star Trek (Next Generation) that swallows entire civilizations (tagline: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.") o Home Depot = chain of gigantic American home-improvement stores that swallow entire small businesses nearby like local lumber yards. Tagline: "You can do it. We can help", which is Borgese for "Resistance is futile. ..." SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire On Dec 3, 8:52 am, "Klaus D. Mikkelsen" <er.du.saa.k...@du.kan.finde.den> wrote: > > Correction: Home Depot is The Borg. > > Oh, I din't know that You know danish better than Me :-) So "Borg" must be "Castle"? In that case, resistance is feudal. ~Pete > Oh, I din't know that You know danish better than Me :-) I prefer apricot to cream filled. But you can't get either kind at Home Despot. I can't think of Home Despot without remembering that great episode of The Wire where hit-girl Snoop is looking to buy a nail gun to re-seal up condemned houses they're hiding bodies in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyWJ_rattv8 * (HBO TV series on Baltimore cops. drug dealers, politicians, teachers and newspapers - the best TV ever done) -- Steve On 12/3/2008 11:46 AM Steve Caple spake thus: >> Oh, I din't know that You know danish better than Me :-) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > * (HBO TV series on Baltimore cops. drug dealers, politicians, teachers and > newspapers - the best TV ever done) Better than "The Prisoner"? I think not, even though I've never seen The Wire. SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire > Better than "The Prisoner"? I think not, even though I've never seen The > Wire. Check it out - it's available on Netflix - you might be amazed. The complete 5 seasons maintained a level of honesty and realism rare on the tube. The producer, David Simon, and primary writer, Ed Burns, were a former Baltimore newspaperman and a former Baltimore homicide cop and teacher; other writers included Richard Price, George Pellecanos, Dennis Lehane, among others. Not the same thing as The Prisoner - no allegory and fantasy. Just people writing about what they know and not styling or lying the way so much of the current crap stream goes. SignatureSteve > On 12/3/2008 11:46 AM Steve Caple spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Better than "The Prisoner"? I think not, even though I've never seen The > Wire. "I am not a number" "You are number six." On 12/3/2008 3:42 PM LD spake thus: >> On 12/3/2008 11:46 AM Steve Caple spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > "You are number six." Writing from memory: "Where am I?" "In the village." "Who are you?" "I am Number 2." "Who is Number 1?" "You are Number 6." "I am not a number, I am a *free man*." "What do you want?" "Information." "You won't get it!" "By hook or by crook, we will." [insane echoing laughter] Now to look it up and see how well I did ... SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire > On 12/3/2008 3:42 PM LD spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Now to look it up and see how well I did ... Very good. "Be seeing you." >> Correction: Home Depot is The Borg. > > Oh, I din't know that You know danish better than Me :-) > > Klaus You don't have to be Danish to detest Home Depot. :o) > [...] >>> So how about some model RR posts from you? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Sellios has modelled is at best "based on" real buildings and scenes. > But what he actually models is his concept of the Depression era. <snip> > IMO, the FS&M is life-like, but it's not like life. Pelle Sjoberg's UP > layout OTOH is both like life and life-like. In both cases, we see that <snip> Not familiar with Sjoberg's layout, but there is an issue with the F&M, which is that most of those who lived through the Great Depression, and were old enough to remember them, are gone, or rapidly going. (I just lost my ...late... wife's mom the end of September, and she was literally a Rosie the Riveter, building Spitfires during the Battle of Britain, and someone I cared deeply about. My folks are both long gone.) So all we can do is look at the pictures and the films from then, and do our best to imitate it, (our) art imitating art, imitating life. mark SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire > [...] > >> So how about some model RR posts from you? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > -- > Wolf Kirchmeir You described it very well Wolf! I was also quite surprised and happy at the same time that George Sellios will be "un-detailing" his layout. I think that he finally realized that he "overdetailed" his wonderful creation. Sometimes less is more and I think that his layout will be a perfect example of that. Peteski I couldn't agree more. In some states you are expected to leave your house, if you can, when faced with a home invasion or potential burglar. >> That's because, under the Texas Constitution and Texas Law, those >> actions, to protect property, are completely legal. > > as they should be everywhere. >I couldn't agree more. > > In some states you are expected to leave your house, if you can, when > faced with a home invasion or potential burglar. Which states require THAT? >>I couldn't agree more. >> >> In some states you are expected to leave your house, if you can, when >> faced with a home invasion or potential burglar. > > Which states require THAT? The paranoid state [of mind] chiefly found in those who can no longer buy a gun big enough to serve as mental Viagra. SignatureSteve >>>I couldn't agree more. >>> >>> In some states you are expected to leave your house, if you can, when >>> faced with a home invasion or potential burglar. >> >> Which states require THAT? At one time, I believe Massachusetts required one to retreat if at all possible. I assume that would infer leave one's home. Have no idea of current law. Whazzit@hectic.org wrote: [Snip] > At one time, I believe Massachusetts required one to retreat if at all > possible. I assume that would infer leave one's home. Have no idea of > current law. I believe current law allows you to defend yourself if you feel your life is threatened. Definitely not open season on housebreakers. -- Bill Kaiser wkaiser@mtholyoke.edu There are three ways to do a job: good, cheap, and quick. You can have any two. A good, cheap job won't be quick. A good, quick job won't be cheap. A cheap, quick job won't be good. >I believe current law allows you to defend yourself if you feel your life is threatened.< This is the defination in many states however if the home owner used deadly force it's possible they could find themselves in civil court or even criminal court if the invader was not armed! >>I believe current law allows you to defend yourself if you feel your life >is threatened.< > > This is the defination in many states however if the home owner used >deadly force it's possible they could find themselves in civil court or even >criminal court if the invader was not armed! Criminal court is very unlikely. The police and DA will do their due diligence to make sure some psychopath didn't invite someone to his home, shoot him, and then claim the guy broke in. But DA's aren't like to touch a case of a home invader being shot for the simple reason that there will be twelve jurors sitting there putting themselves in the shooter's shoes. The common law right to self-defense also doesn't apply solely if you think your life is in danger. It also applies to the fear of "grievous bodily harm" which, of course, includes rape. There is no requirement for the assailant to have a weapon either. It is reasonable to feel a threat of death or grievous boldly harm simply because you are physically outmatched (i.e. more than one, unarmed assailant, or one really big one.) It usually comes down to something very simple. If it is at all clear that the assailant has the ability to retreat, and he doesn't, you can kill him with a clear conscience. >But DA's aren't like to touch a case of a home invader being shot for the simple reason that there will be twelve jurors sitting there putting themselves in the shooter's shoes.< One can never trust their future to DAs. Take the case of the guy charged with the ownership of an automatic weapon. The weapon was broken (documented from manufacture) and someone else was using it. I always keep in mind that a DAs only function is to advance themselves to judge or higher. > The paranoid state [of mind] chiefly found in those who can no longer buy a > gun big enough to serve as mental Viagra. Ya'know, Steve, it's statements like that which convince people that there are nuts on both sides of the gun argument. Maybe you could try being at least somewhat rational instead of just tossing out random straw man arguments? ~Pete >> The paranoid state [of mind] chiefly found in those who can no longer buy a >> gun big enough to serve as mental Viagra. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe you could try being at least somewhat rational instead of just > tossing out random straw man arguments? What goes around, comes around. Let me know when you have rational reasons for homeowners having assault rifles. If a 12 gauge pump and a 9mm aren't enough for you, sounds like you're verging on Hanna Montana Militia Syndrome. SignatureSteve > What goes around, comes around. Ah. They act nutty so you should too? Let's think about the logic implicit in that for a while, shall we? > Let me know when you have rational reasons > for homeowners having assault rifles. If a 12 gauge pump and a 9mm aren't > enough for you, sounds like you're verging on Hanna Montana Militia > Syndrome. Let us *all* know when someone in authority states that you're qualified to decide that sort of thing for anyone but yourself. (There's this funny concept we call "freedom", the original idea of which was that we all got to make our own decisions in life -and stand responsible for the results of those decisions. Most of us seem to think this 'freedom" thing is a good idea...) ~Pete > Most of us seem to think this 'freedom" thing is a good idea... Speak for you own state. In California, there's a 52% chance you're an idiot in favor of theocracy. SignatureSteve > > Most of us seem to think this 'freedom" thing is a good idea... > > Speak for you own state. Uh, California *is* my State. > In California, there's a 52% chance you're an idiot in favor of theocracy. Ah yes; the cry of the wounded idealogue: whenever you lose an election, claim that anyone who opposed your goals is an idiot. And as evidence that there are idiots out there on both extremes, I saw my first "Impeach Obama" bumper sticker today, which means the *right-wing* fruitcakes have forgotten that he's not even the President yet, and so has had no chance to commit any "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office. Still, why let reality get in the way of a good rant? ~Pete >>I couldn't agree more. >> >> In some states you are expected to leave your house, if you can, when >> faced with a home invasion or potential burglar. > >Which states require THAT? Massachusett's, up until thirty years ago, or so, if I remember correctly. >>I couldn't agree more. >> >> In some states you are expected to leave your house, if you can, when >> faced with a home invasion or potential burglar. > > Which states require THAT? Iowa comes to mind, where several years ago a man was charged with a felony for defending his home when it was determined that he could have left through another door as the burglar entered. Mass. allows use of a fire arm to defend one's person if they feel their life is threatened; but not to protect property. >>> In some states you are expected to leave your house, if you can, >>> when faced with a home invasion or potential burglar. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Mass. allows use of a fire arm to defend one's person if they feel > their life is threatened; but not to protect property. A number of states have enacted so-called "Castle Doctrine" legislation to protect homeowners from prosecution or civil suits from the dead felons relatives. The basis is "A man's home is his castle" ideal and an inherent right to defend himself and his belongings from criminals, the life of the criminal being less valuable than the TV set he is trying to steal. Wikipedia has a page on Castle Doctrine, but since it is not regarded very highly here's another one followed by an excerpt: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm > In recent years, a number of states have adopted or considered bills > referred to as “castle doctrine” bills. These bills expand the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > legislature passed a “castle doctrine” bill but the governor vetoed > it. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ "A true friend stabs you in the front." -Oscar Wilde > A number of states have enacted so-called "Castle Doctrine" > legislation to protect homeowners from prosecution or civil suits from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > very highly here's another one followed by an excerpt: > http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm Here is an update of the above site: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0320.htm Here is another site to back up what you found: http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/the-castle-doctrine-a-state-by-state-summary/ More and more are "Castle Doctrine" bills are being introduced. > A number of states have enacted so-called "Castle Doctrine" > legislation to protect homeowners from prosecution or civil suits from > the dead felons relatives. The basis is "A man's home is his castle" > ideal and an inherent right to defend himself and his belongings from > criminals, the life of the criminal being less valuable than the TV set > he is trying to steal. Zero is by definition less than any positive quantity. > A number of states have enacted so-called "Castle Doctrine" > legislation to protect homeowners from prosecution or civil suits from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > very highly here's another one followed by an excerpt: > http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm The use of deadly force should only be permitted if your or someone else's life is in immediate mortal peril. So, you don't shoot someone breaking into your home as you can elect to leave so that you are not in immediate peril and you do not shoot at a fleeing felon unless you or someone else is in immediate peril. So you should never use a gun, nor even the infamous "pit manoeuvre" (Banned by the more civilised countries) to stop a fleeing felon as that puts the policeman into the position of judge, jury and executioner as well as putting innocent civilians at risk. If they're breaking into your house, act like you would in a fire and get out and call the police and the police involved in a chase, should back off and follow at a safe distance. "Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ > civilians at risk. If they're breaking into your house, act like you would > in a fire and get out and call the police and the police involved in a > chase, should back off and follow at a safe distance. If they are breaking into your house, eradicate them and do the world a favour. > "Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not > permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. Sure, for a given value of "more civilised"; in this case meaning "crushed into unquestioning obediance by the same government that told us it was being done for own own good." Thankfully, we in the US still largely cling to the outdated notion that *we* should run the government rather than the other way around. Cheers, ~Pete > Thankfully, we in the US still largely cling to the outdated notion > that *we* should run the government rather than the other way around. Oh? I presume that the "we" you mention does not include those who suported Bush and Cheney and their cohort of imperial presidency - oh, pardon me, "unitary executive" - theorists, or the so-called "PATRIOT" act that would have our founding fathers rising up in revolt. It seems a large part of the US was perfectly happy to let the privileged few - the REAL elitists - run the country; and run it they did, right into the ground. SignatureSteve > > Thankfully, we in the US still largely cling to the outdated notion > > that *we* should run the government rather than the other way around. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > REAL elitists - run the country; and run it they did, right into the > ground. Give it a rest, Steve. All you're doing with your spin is convincing your readers that the far left has just as many mindless idealogues as the far right ever had. And that those two extremes have more in common with each other than they have with centrists such as myself. Both wings are firmly convinced that *they* have all the answers, and that they are justified in enforcing their beliefs on the unwilling middle "for the good of all". But the fact is, the rabid left wing anti-gun nuts are no more attractive to centrists than the Bush team's attempts to enforce it's own version of Sharia Law on the world in general. ~Pete > But the fact is, the rabid left wing anti-gun nuts But the fact is, I'm not a rabd left-wig anti-gun nut. Hell, I voted for Goldwater in '64, and to my everlasting shame, for Tricky Dick in '68 (my excuse: I was in the Tonkin Gulf as a hoist operator-gunner flying SAR missions in H-3s, and while I saw some news footage of the Dems in Chicago, I saw none of Tricky's fake "town hall" meetings. And I just couldn't stand that smarmy bastard Hubert. Since then, I will admit, the only Republican I've voted for was Pete McCloskey. Eight years ago I had good feleings about John McCain, and was sad to see him sell out to the Christian Taliban and Ayn Ranty economic royalists that currently run the GOP. I have a bit of acquaintance with firearms, from black powder rifles to shotguns to a Walther P-38, a model 1911 .45, a S&W .38, on to M-60s, M-16s and M-79 blooper guns. I despise the hairspray substrates on the local news who describe police marking "bullet shells" [sic] at a crime scene, or who can't tell the difference between an automatic pistol and an automatic weapon. I don't want to restrict ownership of long arms, even semi-auto with small (5 round - like a Ruger .44) magazine size, I just want law enforcement to be able to track down those selling guns to gang bangers. I have no quibble with cities having strict requirement on pistol ownership and carry permits. If that makes me a rabid left-wing anti-gun nut, I suggest you reconsider your apparent classification of yourself as a centrist. If you feel any eejit should be free to buy a 12 gauge with a huge rotary drum magazine or an AK knock-off with a 30 round banana magazine that can be made full auto with little effort, or any one of varius TEC and UZI knockoffs, YOU are the nut. Anytime you want to try making a coherent justification for the Tiahrt Amendment, have atcha - be interesting to hear it. Try to explain it to your nearest urban chief of police. PS - next time you see Saxby Chambliss, tell him he's a man without honor and I'll meet him anytime, M-60s at 300 yards. SignatureSteve Steve sounds sensible and the basic disagreement I have is with 5 round mags. I think the 10 is fair for civilians and 15 for police. Where I have problems is with the lawyers we elect that don't know which end of a weapon is which. Example, handguns have serial on frame. Glocks have a kit to retrofit the barrel and slide to a 22. This is legal as is changing the barrel. My local sheriff told me in a Glock you can't check rifling anyway. The people passing and writing these laws know nothing of what I have just said let alone the other thousand of things connected with firearms to make things safe and allow sane people to carry. > Where I have problems is with the lawyers we elect that don't know which >end of a weapon is which. Example, handguns have serial on frame. Glocks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >what I have just said let alone the other thousand of things connected with >firearms to make things safe and allow sane people to carry. The Glock issue you mentioned if mostly an urban legend. Identifying a bullet fired through a polygonally rifled bore is more difficult but far from impossible. It actually turns out to be useful as far as crime goes because so few handguns use polygonal rifling that you are left with a very short list of possible guns. You pretty much narrow it down to Glock, H&K, Kahr, and Magnum Research. As to the lawyers writing laws... geez. That is what gave us the "assault rifle" law. It was like a fashion show. They pick features that they believe make certain guns look scarier than others (e.g. just about any rifle Hollywood has used in an action film) and pass a law prohibiting them. They just ignored the fact that many other not so scary looking guns fire the same damn bullets. They also ignored the fact that so-called assault weapons are used in less than 2% of gun crimes to begin with. And then they try to insist that they aren't engaged in a "death by a thousand cuts campaign" to ban firearms altogether. >> "Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not >> permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thankfully, we in the US still largely cling to the outdated notion > that *we* should run the government rather than the other way around. Just another American Fantasy. The common man has never had control of the American Government. Anybody with half a brain who has observed and understood US history knows that. Bill Dixon > >> "Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not > >> permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bill Dixon Well, Bill, it certainly *sounds* as if you have half a brain, so I guess you'd know. But go ahead and tell us all about how the US is only a puppet government dancing to the tune of the International Zionist Bankers who secretly run the world for their alien masters who control both the UFOs *and* the black helicopters. There's a recession on, and we could use a good laugh. ~Pete >> The common man has never had control of the American Government. >> Anybody with half a brain who has observed and understood US history [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > who secretly run the world for their alien masters who control both > the UFOs *and* the black helicopters. So because you can't use logic to refute Bill's post, you equate him to the lunatic fringe. No, there's no giant conspiracy nor any big secret. The government is controlled, or at least largely influenced, by those who contribute to the politicians. If you don't agree with that, you're the one on the lunatic fringe. > >> The common man has never had control of the American Government. > >> Anybody with half a brain who has observed and understood US history [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So because you can't use logic to refute Bill's post, you equate him to > the lunatic fringe. I don't try to refute flat-earthers, either. Not because I can't, but because it's useless to try. > No, there's no giant conspiracy nor any big secret. The government is > controlled, or at least largely influenced, by those who contribute to the > politicians. If you don't agree with that, you're the one on the lunatic > fringe. I've worked with and around politicians ever since I was in college 40 years ago, and I dare say I know more about how the system works than Bill does. Or you, for that matter. For instance; I was one of those idealistic college kids -or damned fools; take your pick- who went down to Alabama in '66 and worked with Martin Luther King to get blacks the right to register and vote. It worked. It worked just fine. And if there was *one red cent* of lobbiest money going into any politician's pockets in support of *that* idea, they sure managed to keep it a deep dark secret! It worked because there was a massive ground-swell of public support for the end of formal segregation; a ground-swell that the politicians couldn't ignore -although they'd have surely ducked the controversy if they could have done so. The same thing is true today, and will be for the forseeable future. In the end, the people decide. ~Pete >>>> "Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not >>>> permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > But go ahead and tell us all about how the US is only a puppet To business would be more correct. Why is Corn Sweetener used over real sugar? The company that makes most of it pays big bucks to make sure it stays that way. Why did you go to war in Iraq? Big BIg BIG bucks for the military industrial complex who just happen to pay big campaign contributions. Zero effect on terrorism, can you say "We attacked the wrong country?" Look at all the stupid things your country has done in the last few decades and ask yourself, "Did I want to do that?" If no then who did? Who Benefited most from them? The fantasy that the common man (oops should be person, must be PC) controls the government keeps them complacent while the Government does what it wants for those that pay for it to happen. However we are off topic and nothing I can say will convince someone who knows what is correct despite all appearances. Back to trains. Anybody made an HO scale Polar Express yet? Bill Dixon Okay; I confess. The US is an *awful* place, and all of those folks beating the doors down to immigrate here are just ignorant sheeple unknowingly feeding themselves to the voracious maw of an uncaring military-industrial complex that will no doubt use them for cannon-fodder and sell their innocent offspring to pet food companies. (Darn! There goes another one! I'm going to have to start buying my Irony Meters by the gross at this rate!) Happy new year, ~Pete >> A number of states have enacted so-called "Castle Doctrine" >> legislation to protect homeowners from prosecution or civil suits from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The use of deadly force should only be permitted if your or someone else's >life is in immediate mortal peril. So you don't believe a woman has the right to kill a would-be rapist? >"Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not >permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. Good for you. Flee your home if you like. Americans, overwhelmingly, are of a different opinion. >>"Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not >>permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. > > Good for you. Flee your home if you like. Americans, overwhelmingly, are > of > a different opinion. And the sad thing is, you're proud of your "cowboy law". -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >>>"Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not >>>permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >And the sad thing is, you're proud of your "cowboy law". Proud that I can stand our ground on my own property? I have never considered being proud of that really. It's always been a given. I am dumbfounded by your being proud that criminals have the *right* to drive you from your home. What do you do, just slunk off and wait until the criminal leaves? Or do you call the police, who then come and remove the criminal by force? I'm guessing the latter. So it all still comes down to force in the end. You just lack the nerve to do the job yourself. "Spender" > I am dumbfounded by your being proud that criminals have the *right* to > drive you from your home. Where, exactly, did I write or say that? >What do you do, just slunk off and wait until the > criminal leaves? Or do you call the police, who then come and remove the > criminal by force? I'm guessing the latter. So it all still comes down to > force in the end. You just lack the nerve to do the job yourself. No, nerve has nothing to do with it. I believe in the rule of the law, not the Wild West rule of the gun. As for nerve, I'm a volunteer fire-fighter. You? -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >"Spender" > I am dumbfounded by your being proud that criminals have the >*right* to >> drive you from your home. > >Where, exactly, did I write or say that? You clearly stated that if criminals come in, you leave. They're right to be safe to raid your home apparently outweighs your right to be secure in your property. >>What do you do, just slunk off and wait until the >> criminal leaves? Or do you call the police, who then come and remove the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No, nerve has nothing to do with it. I believe in the rule of the law, not >the Wild West rule of the gun. Rule of law? The right to defend yourself is one of the oldest tenets of common law. So that *is* the law. >As for nerve, I'm a volunteer fire-fighter. You? I'll fight my own fires also, unless they get too big. >>"Spender" > I am dumbfounded by your being proud that criminals have the >>*right* to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be safe to raid your home apparently outweighs your right to be secure in > your property. You are attempting to twist me words. You have the right to defend your person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. Lethal force, to protect property, is going overboard. >>>What do you do, just slunk off and wait until the >>> criminal leaves? Or do you call the police, who then come and remove the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'll fight my own fires also, unless they get too big. > You are attempting to twist me words. You have the right to defend your > person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. Lethal force, to > protect > property, is going overboard. That, clearly, is your opinion. But is not supported in fact of law in many countries and fortunately in more and more states of the United States. >> You are attempting to twist me words. You have the right to defend your >> person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. Lethal force, to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > many countries and fortunately in more and more states of the United > States. We shall have to agree to disagree. Nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours. :-) -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >>"Spender" > I am dumbfounded by your being proud that criminals have the >>*right* to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be safe to raid your home apparently outweighs your right to be secure in > your property. You are attempting to twist my words. You have the right to defend your person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. Lethal force, to protect property, is going overboard. >>No, nerve has nothing to do with it. I believe in the rule of the law, >>not >>the Wild West rule of the gun. > > Rule of law? The right to defend yourself is one of the oldest tenets of > common law. So that *is* the law. Depends on where you live. Where I live, you have the right to use "reasonable force", even when it comes to defending your person. Using deadly force to stop someone stealing your TV is not "reasonable force". Even when defending yourself, you have the right to only use "reasonable force". Shooting someone who is about to beat you with their fists may be deemed by the courts, even with a trial, as "unreasonable force". The same goes if you beat your assailent to death. That is usually classed as "unreasonable force". It depends on where you live. If you live in a gun happy culture, then you grow up with a gun happy view point. If you grow up in a culture where guns are either a hobby or used only for hunting, then you look at guns as a dangerous weapon. And please, don't trot out the NRA's red herring about personal protection. That red herring has been theor backbone for years. The vast majority of people, even in the U.S. of A., are killed by people they know, not by felons in the commision of a crime. >>As for nerve, I'm a volunteer fire-fighter. You? > > I'll fight my own fires also, unless they get too big. Right. Then you call on me. :-) -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ > You are attempting to twist my words. You have the right to defend your > person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. You should be able to defend yourself against any attack. > Lethal force, to protect > property, is going overboard. No, allowing criminals free rein is what is "going overboard". >> You are attempting to twist my words. You have the right to defend your >> person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, allowing criminals free rein is what is "going overboard". Once again, I never said that. You even quoted me but you still managed to twist or interpret what I wrote. :-) -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >> You are attempting to twist my words. You have the right to defend your >> person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, allowing criminals free rein is what is "going overboard". Hey - when and where did you do military service? SignatureSteve "Roger T." <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message > Depends on where you live. Where I live, you have the right to use > "reasonable force", even when it comes to defending your person. Using [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > goes if you beat your assailent to death. That is usually classed as > "unreasonable force". "unreasonable force"????? There have been hundreds of people beaten to death by fists alone. And to use "deadly force" in defense against an attack that may cost you your life is "unreasonable force" That is absolute horse pucky. > "unreasonable force"????? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That is absolute horse pucky. Not in the countries I've lived in where people have gone to jail for use of "unreasonable force" as they have in many other western countries. Except yours, and of course. Anyway, this discussion has run its course and is getting no where. Take care. -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >>>"Spender" > I am dumbfounded by your being proud that criminals have the >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. Lethal force, to protect >property, is going overboard. And there is no need to defend your person if you flee your own home. No twisting. I see your point. My point is that one should not have to flee their most personal space. >> Rule of law? The right to defend yourself is one of the oldest tenets of >> common law. So that *is* the law. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >goes if you beat your assailent to death. That is usually classed as >"unreasonable force". I think it is completely unreasonable to expect a person to take an ass-kicking, or expecting a woman to be overpowered and raped, in the name of being "civilized". >It depends on where you live. If you live in a gun happy culture, then you >grow up with a gun happy view point. If you grow up in a culture where guns [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The vast majority of people, even in the U.S. of A., are killed by people >they know, not by felons in the commision of a crime. 70% or so of the shooters *are* felons, as are 60% or so of the victims. We all know very well that most gun crimes occur amongst criminals. >>>As for nerve, I'm a volunteer fire-fighter. You? >> >> I'll fight my own fires also, unless they get too big. > >Right. Then you call on me. :-) And you bring the right tools for the job? Much like a gun is the right tool against an attacker. > And the sad thing is, you're proud of your "cowboy law". And we're also proud that we decided to make our *own* mistakes, thank you -rather than have you make them *for* us- and threw you guys out of here 232 years ago. (Shortly to be followed by the *rest* of your overseas possessions.) Not much has changed in the interum: you *still* think you should be entitled to decide who's civilized and who's not by the simple, arrogant, method of declaring yourselves to be civilized and anyone who disagrees with your judgements *un*civilized. Didn't work 232 years ago, and won't work today, either. ~Pete >> A number of states have enacted so-called "Castle Doctrine" >> legislation to protect homeowners from prosecution or civil suits from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The use of deadly force should only be permitted if your or someone else's > life is in immediate mortal peril. ...or your car, TV set, brass locos, etc. > So, you don't shoot someone breaking into your home as you can elect to > leave so that you are not in immediate peril and you do not shoot at a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in a fire and get out and call the police and the police involved in a > chase, should back off and follow at a safe distance You always shoot to kill someone breaking into your house rather than allowing them free rein to loot whatever they please. You should always have at least one gun, preferably more, loaded and ready to use in case of home invasion. Taking the felon out of the gene pool saves decent society the costs of prosecution and incarceration of the undesirable for years. Act like you would if the Chinese were landing on the beaches of your native land and repel them with deadly force. > "Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not > permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. The rapist who isn't shot dead on the spot lives to rape another day. Society is strengthened when the evil and corrupt elements are permanently removed from the gene pool. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ Eat well, stay fit, die anyway. "Rick Jones" < > You always shoot to kill someone breaking into your house rather than > allowing them free rein to loot whatever they please. You should always [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Act like you would if the Chinese were landing on the beaches of your > native land and repel them with deadly force. The "cowboy" mentality at work. Justify armed force by any argument, flawed or not. The vast majority of people, even in the U.S.A, are killed by people they know and not by felons. However, the NRA has convinced so many otherwise that it's become impossible to argue with. As Himmler, I think it was, once wrote. If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Based on the NRA's arguments, the U.S of A should be the safest country world. Is it? Or do you live in a constant state of fear where you need a loaded gun in the house, can't walk your dog at night, can't park your own car at night when you go downtown but have use the valet service because parking is too dangerous etc., etc.? The U.S. of A is the most dangerous country in the so called "western world" with more murders in any single major city than most other western countries have in the whole country. I guess owning guns really makes you safe? >> "Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not >> permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. > > The rapist who isn't shot dead on the spot lives to rape another day. > Society is strengthened when the evil and corrupt elements are permanently > removed from the gene pool. Screw the rule of law then? -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ > > The rapist who isn't shot dead on the spot lives to rape another day. > > Society is strengthened when the evil and corrupt elements are permanently > > removed from the gene pool. > > Screw the rule of law then? Er, that *is* the rule of law over here: women are allowed to resist violent rape by using deadly force, and are generally applauded for doing so. Not only does it remove the rapist from the gene pool, it also saves *scads* of tax money that would otherwise have been spent on trying him, jailing him, giving him extensive psychological therapy, and then supervising his parole so that he can do it all over again. In short; we tend to favor the victim's rights over those of the rapist's, and we like to think it's better that way. ~Pete [...]. As Himmler, I think it > was, once wrote. If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. [...] Actually, it was Napoleon. He needed the French population's tacit consent for his attacks on the rest of Europe, so he lied about the other European powers' intentions. He not only got the consent, he got millions of recruits. And he got the powers to line up against him, too, just as he said they would. Nice example of how a lie can become s elf-fulfilling prophecy. SignatureWolf Kirchmeir > [...]. As Himmler, I think it >> was, once wrote. If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nice example of how a lie can become s elf-fulfilling prophecy. I think the quote in question was actually by Herman Goering. See tagline. The current administration has apparently studied the Nazi way of leadership quite thoroughly. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for ... exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -Herman Goering, at the Nuremberg Trials >> [...]. As Himmler, I think it >>> was, once wrote. If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tagline. The current administration has apparently studied the Nazi way > of leadership quite thoroughly. Goering "borrowed" it from Napoleon. I think it was said, in one form or another, much earlier. Come to think of it, Plato, in his Republic, implied as much: the "philosophers" were supposed to, um, keep the populace in the dark, since ordinary folk weren't capable of understanding the truth (which was, that the "philosophers" would rule the Republic purely in a spirit of public service. And Plato was the King of Egypt.) Cheers SignatureWolf Kirchmeir >The "cowboy" mentality at work. Justify armed force by any argument, flawed >or not. The vast majority of people, even in the U.S.A, are killed by >people they know and not by felons. However, the NRA has convinced so many >otherwise that it's become impossible to argue with. As Himmler, I think it >was, once wrote. If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. You are mixing a lie with the truth. Yes, most murder victims know their killer. But those killers overwhelmingly tend to have felony records (so do most of the victims.) My advice? Don't hang out with felons, or be one yourself. >The U.S. of A is the most dangerous country in the so called "western world" >with more murders in any single major city than most other western countries >have in the whole country. I guess owning guns really makes you safe? You can't lump in all the murders that occur amongst criminals to suggest that the average person doesn't feel safe. I feel very safe where I live. I'm prepared should I ever feel unsafe, but I'm certainly not expecting to. There is also a tragic truth that needs to be remembered. White people in America have approximately the same rate of gun homicides as white people in Canada, England, Germany, etc. >> The rapist who isn't shot dead on the spot lives to rape another day. >> Society is strengthened when the evil and corrupt elements are permanently >> removed from the gene pool. > >Screw the rule of law then? The law here *allows* you to shoot a would-be rapist. > "Rick Jones" < > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > car at night when you go downtown but have use the valet service because > parking is too dangerous etc., etc.? Never been a member of the NRA. Too many Busheviks in that organization and I don't care for the other political positions THOSE PEOPLE support. Like any real American I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. ALL of them together, not just the selected rights that the wingnuts on the lunatic fringes at both ends of the political spectrum chose to believe in while discarding the rest. We used to hang horse thieves in this country. Horses are no longer a primary mode of transportation now, but the death penalty for carjacking would be the modern equivalent. But we have become such a simpering lot of pansies in this country through the whining of the bleeding hearts that people that deserve to die like Charlie Manson or Sirhan Sirhan are kept alive for decades at taxpayer expense. No anti-capital punishment proponent has ever managed to give any intelligent, logical reason why people like this shouldn't die. >>> "Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not >>> permitted in the more civilised parts of the world. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Screw the rule of law then? Civil disobedience in the case of bad laws put on the books by bad politicians has a long and honorable tradition. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. > We used to hang horse thieves in this country. Horses are no longer >a primary mode of transportation now, but the death penalty for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >anti-capital punishment proponent has ever managed to give any >intelligent, logical reason why people like this shouldn't die. The number one reason against capital punishment, IMO, is the possibility of mistakes. There are more than 25 cases of capital punishment being used to kill the wrong guy in America during the 20th century. Oops. Since 1992 there have been 15 men exonerated by DNA evidence. Lucky for them that capital punishment is no longer swift. I have no problem, in theory, with someone who is guilty being put to death. But a mistake makes you a murderer. It does make me shake my head to hear the talk of such punishment being cruel and unusual based on "constitutional" grounds. It obviously wasn't considered to be cruel and unusual by the men who wrote those words into the constitution. >> We used to hang horse thieves in this country. Horses are no longer >> a primary mode of transportation now, but the death penalty for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > someone who is guilty being put to death. But a mistake makes you a > murderer. I do support DNA testing and other methods to exonerate people who have been wrongly incarcerated. There are many, many cases, however, in which there is little question of guilt and the death penalty is a fitting punishment. The two aforementioned criminals, as well as Gary Gilmore, Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, Mark David Chapman, and a host of others would seem to be fair game to be put to death. (Gilmore, McVeigh and Bundy were executed, and I don't know of many people that shed a tear over them.) SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ "The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to [devious and mediocre] men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." -H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920 <snip> C'mon guys, you've beat this subject to death. I don't mind a little off-topic arguing, but this has been going on way too long. Can we drop it and get back to model railroading? ><snip> > >C'mon guys, you've beat this subject to death. I don't mind a little >off-topic arguing, but this has been going on way too long. > >Can we drop it and get back to model railroading? Okay. How about that Lionel Great Train Robbery set? ;) > C'mon guys, you've beat this subject to death. I don't mind a little > off-topic arguing, but this has been going on way too long. Sorry. You don't get to decide that for the other posters any more than you'd walk up to two strangers on the sidewalk and tell them to change the subject of their conversation. > Can we drop it and get back to model railroading? We never left. If you have a model railroading post you want to get off your chest, for gosh sakes have at it. No one is stopping you. ~Pete >> Can we drop it and get back to model railroading? > > We never left. If you have a model railroading post you want to get > off your chest, for gosh sakes have at it. I wonder how he would feel if one of these uncontrolled criminals came in to his house and destroyed his model railroad. >>> Can we drop it and get back to model railroading? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I wonder how he would feel if one of these uncontrolled criminals came > in to his house and destroyed his model railroad. I see you made an assumption as to which side I'd take in this dispute. Without any evidence whatsoever. Typical. Try breaking into my house and see how far you get :-). All further responses cheerfully ignored. >>>> Can we drop it and get back to model railroading? >>> We never left. If you have a model railroading post you want to get >>> off your chest, for gosh sakes have at it. >> I wonder how he would feel if one of these uncontrolled criminals came >> in to his house and destroyed his model railroad. > I see you made an assumption as to which side I'd take in this dispute. > Without any evidence whatsoever. Typical. The statement made no assumptions whatever. It was purely an implied query. It is you that is making assumptions. Without any evidence whatsoever. Typical. [...] > The number one reason against capital punishment, IMO, is the possibility > of mistakes. There are more than 25 cases of capital punishment being used [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > someone who is guilty being put to death. But a mistake makes you a > murderer. I think capital punishment is too soft. A few years of anxiety while appeals wind their way through the courts, then a few seconds of pain (or not, since it's done "humanely" these days.) Not good enough punishment for creeps like Manson. I think lifelong solitary, with every effort made to prevent suicide, would be fair. And I mean _solitary_ - no human contact of any kind ever again. If hands-on treatment is required, knock 'em out with funny gas, deal with them, and let them come to in their padded, solitary, 24-hour-lighted, soundproof cell. As for Sirhan Sirhan, he was deranged psychotic. In my more paranoid moods I suspect he was "managed" by those who wanted Robert Kennedy dead. > It does make me shake my head to hear the talk of such punishment being > cruel and unusual based on "constitutional" grounds. It obviously wasn't > considered to be cruel and unusual by the men who wrote those words into > the constitution. Well, most of them had no objections to treating humans as property either, and slavery was defended on constitutional grounds for decades. The beauty of the US Constitution is that most of it consists of statements of principles, not rules. SignatureWolf Kirchmeir > That's because, under the Texas Constitution and Texas Law, those actions, > to protect property, are completely legal. How about protecting an entire nation from some draft-dodging Texas dipshit who ran it into the ground? Where the f.ck was Lee Harvey Oswald 8 years ago when we needed him? SignatureSteve > On a Yahoo Group that I follow there was a short discussion about > copying one's VHS railroad tapes onto DVDs to preserve them. One [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bob B Selling them was illegal because you copied them onto DVD. That meant you had two copies. By selling either copy, you do exactly what you admit would be not right. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a problem. The DVd copies are "backups for personal use", which is still, it seems, OK despite the DRM Act (there is some legal dubt aboutn this.) But if you don't have the originals, then the DVDs aren't backups anymore. See? HTH SignatureWolf Kirchmeir > Selling them was illegal because you copied them onto DVD. That meant > you had two copies. By selling either copy, you do exactly what you > admit would be not right. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a problem. The > DVd copies are "backups for personal use", which is still, it seems, OK > despite the DRM Act (there is some legal dubt aboutn this.) But if you > don't have the originals, then the DVDs aren't backups anymore. See? What "if" the originals were destroyed by an angry spouse or other natural disaster? {:^) >> Selling them was illegal because you copied them onto DVD. That meant >> you had two copies. By selling either copy, you do exactly what you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What "if" the originals were destroyed by an angry spouse or other > natural disaster? {:^) You MAY have one or two copies. [Yours, in your possession/ control] One or both may be destroyed!. The problem is the copy NO LONGER IN YOUR CONTROL, WHILE you still retain a copy. That "Copy no longer in your control" whether by sale or gift, is Illegal. Chuck D. >You MAY have one or two copies. [Yours, in your possession/ control]< As was mentioned earlier there are conflicting laws. One saying that any modification of equipment (software) to make a copy is illegal and another saying you can have a copy for backup. I will pay attention to all this crap when they decide to replace (for free) my 500 laser disks and continue to replace as they change formats, etc. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.